On aircraft of the A320, A330, A340, B737/747 generation, the construction of the flight plan is done by means of a display screen which is not interactive and from an alphanumeric keyboard on a so-called MCDU (Multi Purpose Control Display) interface. This process is tedious and inaccurate.
On more recent aircraft (A380, A350, B777, B787) and on business aircraft (Falcon for example), pointing devices have been introduced but the creation of trajectories by progressive insertion of flight points (or “waypoints”) remains laborious and limited.
On a few yet more recent aircraft, interactive or touch-sensitive screens allow the pilot to define or modify a trajectory, termed a “stick”, which consists of a drawing of the desired trajectory. The pilot receives, after computation by the onboard computer, a validated—but modified—trajectory which may be very different from the desired trajectory, on account of the consideration of the flight constraints.
The progressive insertion of waypoints is still called for, i.e. an arbitrary trajectory cannot be manipulated by the pilot, thus culminating in rather inflexible solutions.
Patent application US2009319100 discloses systems and methods for defining and representing a trajectory. However, the application does not deal with certain aspects, for example relating to the real-time tracking or to the manipulation of an arbitrary trajectory. Furthermore, the model of interaction with the FMS onboard computer presents limitations. In particular, much “toing and froing” or “trial and error” may be required in order to finalize a trajectory. The definition and the management of “allowed modifications” does not afford a satisfactory solution.
In all the typical cases set forth previously, the computation time representative of a complete trajectory by an FMS takes between 2 and 10 seconds. Thus, on each addition of a point to the flight plan, the crew must wait to view the corresponding final trajectory, such as validated by the avionics systems.
This time lag occurring between the instant of the formulation of the desires regarding trajectory—or regarding change of trajectory—and the trajectory validation by the onboard computer gives rise to numerous limitations and drawbacks (e.g. delays, sluggishness, inflexibility). Employing pointers (e.g. mice) or touch-sensitive interfaces renders the response waiting times yet more problematic. Per se, the repetition of tedious operations may give rise to cognitive overload of the pilot, prejudicial to his fatigue and therefore to flight safety. In certain situations, the inflexibility of existing systems may go so far as to discourage changes of trajectory from being made.
There exists in the industry a need for advanced processes and systems for the definition and management of flight trajectories within the equipment present in the flight cabin of an aircraft (or of the cabin for remote-piloting of a drone).